Wingnuts and Moonbats: October 2009

Think about it...

If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this site, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.

And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...

It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...

(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)

"It is entirely possible for a non-soldier to advocate war without being a chickenhawk. A chickenhawk is someone who ascribes the bravery of soldiers in wartime to themselves because they take a pro-war position, not someone who simply argues for war without fighting in it. Pretending that supporting the war is as courageous as fighting it is the hallmark of the chickenhawk." - Midwest Product - July 27, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

For evidence of just this kinda thinking, please see the following exchange:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Repsac3: "I don't know who I feel more sorry for; snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or Donald, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice."

Associate Professor Donald Douglas: "I serve my country ever day teaching students, many of whom are the first in their families to go to college.

The most disadvantaged ones, and those who have served, thank me for my instruction and moral integrity, and they share with me their shame at anti-Americans like yourself."
------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate teachers as much as the next guy (& more than many), but how many teachers are making the same kinda sacrifices as those who serve in the military? While I'm glad the man has such a lofty opinion of himself & his chosen profession, I think it arrogant of Professor Douglas to put himself & his "service" in the same class as anyone who fought (& was wounded, no less) in battle while serving our country.

Donald Douglas: Chickenhawk, or stalwart associate professor of political science, serving on the battlefield of American community college education, just as bravely as our military men & women, protecting & defending America throughout the world?

You decide.

While Democrats are constantly forced by manufactured controversies generated by the right-wing noise machine and their media allies to "repudiate" and "renounce" a never ending carousel of "extremists" ranging from the moderate to the irrelevant (Michael Moore, MoveOn, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. etc.), the GOP establishment for years has tied itself at the hip to hate-mongering extremists along the lines of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Roberston, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of various Instapunks, with no repercussions or accountability whatsoever. - Glenn Greenwald - Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Salon.com

Wingnuts and Moonbats

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Could it be more simple?

My Inner Circle / Must Reads

Think about it...

Moonbats

Non/Multi-partisans

Wingnuts I Read (and often enjoy)

Paste Webicon Image of the Day

MommyBloggers (feat. the "Commie Mommies" ...because mean girls suck)

Popular Posts

Google+ Badge

But It's Not About Me

Books I Like

Random Quote...

Diggs I Dugg

Follow me

Referrals I Generate:

The law of the land?

Posts I Posted

Pictures I Picture

Labels I Label

Links I Link

Podcasts I Listen To

Status blog